The Skinny

The question is often asked by critics of modern animal agriculture but the size of the farm is not a reliable indicator of animal welfare. Research shows good animal husbandry has more to do with the people providing the care.

Small and large farms present different challenges, but both require skilled and conscientious management to promote good animal care. While there are fewer animals on a small operation, time spent caring for the animals must be juggled with various tasks. On larger operations, employees are often trained in specialized skills and a larger staff might allow for more personalized animal care.

The reason farms have gotten larger has more to do with maintaining income levels than increasing profits. One study provides this example: In the 1970s an operation producing 2,000 pigs a year would generate a profit of $42,000. In the 1990s the profit from such a farm would have been about $8,000. Taking inflation into account, the size of the farm would have to be roughly ten times larger in the 1990s to result in a similar income.

True? Or Not? "The well-being of farm animals on larger operations is disregarded in the pursuit of higher profits."

Edmond Pajor SAYS...

THE NITTY GRITTY:

The question is often asked by critics of modern animal agriculture but the size of the farm is not a reliable indicator of animal welfare. Research shows good animal husbandry has more to do with the people providing the care.

FARM ANIMAL WELFARE Initial Statement: The well-being of farm animals on larger operations is disregarded in the pursuit of higher profits.

The relationship between farm size, the intensification of animal agriculture, agricultural economics and animal welfare is incredibly complex. In fact, the research and analysis required to support or refute the statement has yet to be carried out to any significant degree.

Despite the lack of scholarship on the topic the above statement represents part of the often repeated rhetoric of what is now called the “Standard Critique” of intensive animal production and its effects on animal welfare (Fraser, 2005). The are numerous components to this critique including the replacement of a) family farms with corporations, b) traditional farming methods with industrial methods and c) animal care values with corporate profit seeking, which is the subject of the above statement.

The statement suggests a shift on the part of producers away from their traditional values of stewardship and animal care as farm size increases. There is no question that such a change is plausible, the attitudes and values of a producer that owns thousands of animals may differ from a producer that owns 25, but there is little research on the issue. In contrast to this expectation, one study investigating animal handling, found no difference when small independent farms were compared to large integrated farms in Australia (Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998). In other studies, Hemsworth and Coleman (1998) report clear evidence that a wide range of attitudes towards animals does exist among producers but it is unclear if those attitudes vary with farm size.

An increase in farm size may result in a decrease in animal well-being if workers have little economic incentive invested in the operation, if animal care decisions are made by executives with little animal contact, if systems are not designed to address animal welfare at the individual level as group sizes increase. However, large farms may also provide improved animal well-being, through developing workers with specialized skills and training, and additional staff and capital. Small farms, often mixed, require juggling of various activities on the farm which, given a limited work force may compromise a level of animal care if other demands are more immediate.

The initial statement implies that modern, large scale producers are simply motivated to maximize profit which they somehow control. The reality of fluctuating profit levels, a cheap food policy and the roles of consumers and retailers are ignored in the standard critique. Fraser, (2005) argues effectively that fluctuating profit levels, especially low profit levels, may be a major driving factor toward large farms and provides the data for the following example: In 1970’s a family run unit with 120 sows would produce 2,000 pigs and generate a profit of 42,000$. In the 1990’s the profit from such a unit would have been only about $8000. Taking inflation into account, the family with 120 sows in 1970 would required a herd roughly ten times larger in the 1990’s to result in a similar family income.

Hendrickson and James, (2004) also emphasize how economic constraints due to the industrialization of agriculture, in order to produce cheap food limit options available to the producer. They argue that this limitation combined with economic pressures increase the likelihood that farmers will consider unethical behavior perhaps including a decrease in animal care. With decreasing food costs (in relative terms) and other economic constraints, farms needed to become larger in order to maintain an adequate income to support a family farm.

Farm size and animal welfare are distinct topics (Blackwell and Rollin, 2008). Different types of farms, different farm sizes will present different animal well-being challenges. The key issue impacting animal well-being is animal management, how well an operation is run, rather than the type of operation or size of farm. Although producers’ attitudes to animal care may change with farm size there is no empirical evidence to support this idea. Rather than excessive profit taking by producers an alternative explanation is that there has been a change in the values of consumers regarding food consumption and animal care. This is reflected in cheap food policies, retailer actions, and consumer behavior. Producers rather than driving the systems towards larger farms and less care may simply be the victims of a much larger issue involving providing safe food at low cost.

Patricia Hester SAYS...

THE NITTY GRITTY:

The question is often asked by critics of modern animal agriculture but the size of the farm is not a reliable indicator of animal welfare. Research shows good animal husbandry has more to do with the people providing the care.

FARM ANIMAL WELFARE Initial Statement: The well-being of farm animals on larger operations is disregarded in the pursuit of higher profits.

Food-producing animals raised in any size operation will bring greater profits if raised humanely using high welfare standards. Whether animals are in a small pastured operation with a herd or flock size of two or housed in a large confined unit with thousands of animals, greater profits are expected using husbandry practices that improve the well-being of animals. Furthermore, research has shown that it is the animal caretaker who plays a major role in the quality of welfare that animals receive. Good stockmanship, whether in a small or large operation, is extremely influential in providing high welfare standards for animals (Dawkins et al., 2004).

Consumers want high welfare standards for food producing animals. Animal agriculture promotes animal well-being by implementing practices that ensure that animals receive appropriate housing or shelters with adequate space and waste removal, health care, feed that meets their nutrient requirements, and a clean supply of water. An example of how industrialized agriculture has provided more space per animal at the risk of lower profits are the United Egg Producer’s animal husbandry guidelines. This welfare certified-program increased the space allowance per caged hen to improve bird welfare even though under some economic conditions, greater profits can be achieved with less space per animal (United Egg Producers, 2008).

Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Putting meat on the table: industrial farm animal production in America. 2008. Philadelphia and Baltimore, The Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Emily Patterson-Kane SAYS...

THE NITTY GRITTY:

The question is often asked by critics of modern animal agriculture but the size of the farm is not a reliable indicator of animal welfare. Research shows good animal husbandry has more to do with the people providing the care.

FARM ANIMAL WELFARE Initial Statement: The well-being of farm animals on larger operations is disregarded in the pursuit of higher profits.

Most people think of farms as belonging to two distinct types: small, extensive, traditional and family-operated or large, intensive, modern and company-owned. In reality the distinction between small and large farms is not that clear-cut. Farm size represents a continuum from small hobby farms to very large and highly productive units that produce much of the food and fiber sold to consumers.[1]

Small farms continue to outnumber large farms, but in recent decades the average farm has grown in size and the total number of farms has declined.[2],[3] This is because successful farms tend to expand, and keeping more animals per farm generally results in greater profit per farm, although not necessarily more profit per animal.[4],[5] This changing agricultural landscape presents challenges and it is important to protect and advance the welfare of livestock as animal agriculture continues to evolve.

From the Animal’s Point of View The number of animals on a farm has an indirect impact on the type and level of care provided for each animal. Consequently, the effects of farm size on animal welfare are not clear cut. For example, when it comes to diseases and health conditions that reduce animal welfare, the main risk factors are hygiene, nutrition and type of animal selected. Many diseases and adverse effect of toxins (e.g., dioxin in eggs) have a lower incidence on large farms, potentially due to more effective hygiene and reduced exposures.[6],[7] However, dairy cow lameness is more common in larger herds.[8],[9] Studies that take into account multiple aspects of farm management have not found the number of animals on the farm to be a significant factor.[10],[11] For example a study of whether cows avoid people showed that daily contact and handling was important for reducing fearfulness, but small herd size was not.[12]

From the Consumer’s Point of View Surveys suggest the public does care about whether farm animals experience good welfare. When asked, they usually emphasize the importance of providing animals with adequate space and not putting too many animals in the space provided,[13] but express less concern about the total number of animals on the farm.[14] However, some studies have revealed a consumer preference for small or medium-sized farms over large farms.[15] A 2007 survey found that 57% of people agreed with the statement “farm animals raised on small farms have a better life than those raised on large farms.”[16]

From the Farmer’s Point of View Farm size has not been demonstrated to affect farmers’ ethical beliefs in relation to harmful or unlawful actions.[17] Some studies found that farmers on large farms reported they were more satisfied with the health of their animals,17 or had a more meaningful life[18] and were able to better serve their communities.[19] Other studies, however, identified no relationship between farm size and measures of how well satisfied farmers were with their lifestyles.[20] Larger farms may be able to offer better working conditions for their employees due to higher profitibility.2

In Summary The size of a farm will affect the pressures and obligations put on farmers as they care for their animals. For example a large, extensive farm may place some animals far from the center of farm activities making them more vulnerable to predation and neglect[21],[22] or it may precipitate conflicts between the needs of livestock and those of local wildlife that dwell in unused areas of the farm.[23] On the other hand, being raised on a small farm may mean that animals are subject to particularly long transport times to slaughter,[24] and such farms may have less ability to invest in veterinary care and other up-to-date biosecurity measures that protect their animals from disease.[25] Small and large farms present different challenges, but both require skilled and conscientious management to protect and promote animal welfare.[26] Thus farm size, in and of itself, will never be a reliable sole or primary indicator of the welfare of the animals on the farm.